Acceptable to omit?
 

Is it ever acceptable to omit words such as "Flight Level" and "Heading" when reading back a FL to climb/descend to and headings to turn to?.

E.g:

ATC: "Bluesky 737 Climb Flight Level 240"
Bluesky737: "Climb 240, Bluesky 737"

ATC: "Bluesky 737 Turn Right Heading 270"
Bluesky737: "Turn Right 270, Bluesky 737"

Thanks ;)

NO...unless you are in the states where you hear this all the time.

On the other hand, the FAA policy is good at making sure your callsign doesn't get confused with a heading or a flight level.

For example, if your callsign is "XXX 160" this would be spoken as "XXX One Sixty". We could learn from this on this side of the Pond.

Depends what you mean by "acceptable" but it certainly is NOT correct R/T Phraseology as defined in CAP 413 and, I imagine, the ICAO Documents.

Misunderstandings in comunications can be the cause of incidents and surely this is the purpose of having standard R/T procedures. I find it difficult to understand why any professional pilot would deem it acceptable to deviate from standard R/T procedures. Just because some of the herd decide to ignore doesn't mean to say it's right!

In the US I got the feeling the guy's in the big boys can say what ever they want to say.:hmm:

In the UK, however, things are a bit more strickt. You have to read back all clearances, Flight levels, headings and QNH's and whatever I missed out...

(Currently spending air time in the US, soon to be going back to the UK)

When you fly in airspace that demands very brief radio communications, finding a way to communicate essential information in the clearest and least time consuming manner sometimes takes precedence over strict adherence to full standard phraseology. The need for aural brevity should be considered along with the importance of standard phraseology as the situation dictates. Do what contributes the most your own and to overall safety according to your best judgment. In the US, the recommended R/T phraseology is found in the Aeronautical Information Manual, an advisory publication intended to familiarize airmen with the standards, procedures and expectations for operating in the national airspace system. Admittedly, many airmen might benefit from giving it a good read now and then!

As our authority and responsibility as pilots to apply best judgment to meet the situation at hand is eroded by codification and blind adherence to procedure, we must be mindful that the development of this codified procedure was originally intended to enhance safety by promoting standardization. Used for that purpose only, it does what was intended. It falls upon us to be the guardians of the gate through which the economic masters of this industry must pass in order to make it more a replacement for knowledge, skill, experience and yes, professional judgment than as an enhancement to safety. Some may think it can be both. Never with me. See "Pilotless airliners"!

Best regards,

Westhawk

westhawk wrote: "When you fly in airspace that demands very brief radio communications, finding a way to communicate essential information in the clearest and least time consuming manner sometimes takes precedence over strict adherence to full standard phraseology"

I understand your point and indeed it is a valid one. But flying in countries where english is not mother tongue, standard ICAO phraseology should be used. Have you ever tried flying in Spain?

Barcelona Ctrl: "Ryanair 123..muy buenas, descend flightlevel 70, transition level 70, QNH 1000, heading 070, direct GIR."

Ryanair: " Confirm descend FLIGHTLEVEL 70, and confirm DIRECT GIR"

Barcelona: " Ryanaaair...uh..If you like...uhhh, direct GIR.":ugh:

The trouble starts when either the sender or the recipient is not familiar with the phraseology applied in the message. If a United flight is reporting "...descending ta twentyfour.." this may be ok in the U.S. however try that in Spain and the controller will for sure not understand.
Not to mention Italy...they wouldn't even respond. Lots of times I have found myself in a situation where I know the controller can hear me, but he/she just doesn't feel like responding because he probably feels the situation is "under control". It's simply weird.

Another one..Ctrl: "Speedbird 321, traffic 1 o'clock, 8 miles, same level, descending. Report him in sight."
Speedbird: " Roger, uh...stand by... we don't have him in sight yet. Looking out uh..., and uh..will report when visual with traffic.."

How about " Roger, wilco."

Nobody speaks ICAO english, but I try to adhere to the standards as much as possible. And if most people used it everyday, our jobs would have been so much easier.

RYR-738-JOCKEY:

You provided some good examples of how the use of language can affect the quality of communication between pilots and controllers with differing native languages, local speech patterns etc... Of course we must judge the quality of any exchange upon the outcome of that exchange. In other words, did all parties understand the transmitted and received messages to have the same meaning? The goal is of course the clear transmission and receipt of messages between parties for the purpose of safe air navigation. The creation and use of standard phraseology is but a framework intended to provide a common ground for all participants to rely upon in the furtherance of this goal.

The application of sound aeronautical judgment sometimes demands that we get right to the point, using plain or abbreviated language when necessary to achieve a desired result from our communication exchange with ATC. Standard R/T procedures were written with normal and reasonably foreseeable circumstances in mind. They were not designed in such a way so as to foresee some of the circumstances which have indeed come to pass in today's operating environment. Examples are too numerous to cite here, but I'm certain that using your own experience for reference, you know what I mean.

Sometimes the designed procedures are inadequate to the task in situations that were never foreseen during the development of the procedures. It falls to you to find a way to get your point across until such time as the system catches up with reality. During this era of rapid change in the global aviation arena, ICAO, and indeed most countries around the world are struggling to keep pace with the changing times.

None of the above is intended to justify a complete abandonment by aircrew of the procedures currently in place, or to excuse a sloppy, lax or unprofessional approach to radio communications technique. On the contrary. The procedures provide the only common frame of reference we have to rely on.

I merely point out that more than ever before, critical thinking and the application of well considered sound judgment must be applied by aircrew to overcome the increasingly obvious shortcomings of the global aviation communications infrastructure and the procedures which were designed to operate within a system from another era.

And now, a wee peek into the future...

As might be expected, the application of technology to fill in the gaps is available today. And it has been for some time. What is lacking is the economic impetus to employ it. As long as cheaper = better in the minds of the flying public, industry will operate on that premise. As the voice communications frequencies become ever more congested, the challenge will grow. Finally, after the situation becomes untenable, digitization and automation of air/ground communications will become cheaper than the alternative of limiting traffic flow to forestall frequency and airspace saturation and a potential catastrophe. Yes, runways are a limiting factor in some locales, but here in the US, it is already apparent that the ability of certain ATC sectors to handle the present volume of transiting traffic has become the limiting factor. And as you may be aware, US ATC is already pretty well known as an organization that can move some metal! What happens if the projected growth in air traffic indeed comes to pass? I certainly expect to spend much more time sitting on the ground awaiting clearance to depart.

Again, none of my comments are intended to promote a departure from established procedure. Established procedure must be the default action except where it is inadequate to the task, else a kind of radio anarchy might ensue! I just hope it is recognized that established procedures have their limitations and that desired results might sometimes take precedence over adherence to convention. I hope everyone recognizes the distinction I make between the two.

Best regards and a happy, safe holiday to all!

Westhawk

JW411:

Except, of course, that many of the same folks will descend to FL 'Two Sixty', so it doesn't really help. Standard english RT phraseology exists because lessons have often been learnt the hard way - what if, in your example, there had been a aircraft with C/S "XXX 116"?

XXX One Sixty and XXX One Sixteen are a little too close for comfort, and we then have the same problem again!

Some thoughts:

ALL Communication consists of four basic parts:

The Sender
The Message
The Receiver
The Feedback

Fail to consider any one of those and there is a high risk of misunderstanding and miscommunication. Of course lots of that 'consideration' is done for us by development of standard RT and SOPs, so we don't have to re-invent the wheel every time we PTT.

Allow me to use your examples, RYR-738:

The Sender: RYR-738 - someone with an idea that foreign ATC may have trouble with non-standard phraseology, so...

The Message: is constructed to use standard RT and not too much information (I would personally used one Tx to confirm level, and another for routing, for the reason you illustrate, but we know what a hurry you folks at RYR are in! ;)). Therefore...

The Receiver: hears something which they are able to understand and provide

The Feedback, which RYR-738 then uses to satisfy his or herself that the communcation was understood. In this case the ATCO didn't do that to RYR's satisfaction, so we need to go through the process again (perhaps learning something from the first failed attempt and trying a different technique, not necessarily just louder and slower!)

Now imagine of any of those steps had been done badly - not considering the recipient's circumstances, wording your message poorly (non-standard RT), not providing sensible feedback...it is easy to see how ambiguities and misunderstandings can arise, and how they can be potential fligth safety hazards.

Summary: Always consider those four parts of ANY communication, whether over the RT or indeed within the flight deck; if you spot any part that has been done badly then step in and make sure it is resolved.

Different cultures may have different expectations of what is required over the RT, but all have the common goal of flight safety and none are stupid. You may have to adapt your personal RT habits to account for these differences (..think about "The Receiver"), but:

1) use standard RT
2) if in doubt, CHECK IT OUT! Don't allow ambiguities to persist, whether arisen from differing national RT standards or from poor RT discipline.

Happy New Year

GL

Maybe not, as the controller won't know who has replied!;)

PP

Canada too. And not just the "natives" - foreign carriers seem to slip into the habit as well. When in Rome I guess.

Never heard any "confusion" from such omissions personally. Never really thought about it until now.

This is a discussion which can drag on and on, as much of the procedures are based upon local regulation.

Having said that, as a matter of general airmanship, irrespective of whether or not the local procedures require it, I believe it to be good practice to always preface numbers with "Heading", "Flight Level". etc.

As an example a few years ago we overheard an aircraft at Flight Level 310 given a radar vector to "Turn Left Heading 310". His reply was "XYZ Left 310". The (predictable) ATC response was "Confirm you've left Flight Level 310".

No-one was hurt, but the makings of a serious event were there.

Remove the ambiguity, say it in full, it only takes a fraction of a second to say the extra word or two, even if not required.

Regards, and Happy New Year,

Old Smokey